Shocking waste of public funds at this critical time

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

LETTER TO ALL COUNCILLORS
Sent: Thursday, 28 Jul, 2022 At 11:37 AM 

Subject: Shocking waste of public funds at this critical time 

Mission Australia report shows 1 in 30 Tassie teens 

experienced homelessness for the first time | 

The Examiner | Launceston, TAS 

City of Launceston Councillors,

Along with many, many ratepayers and residents of Launceston, I am shocked and appalled that there is again the prospect of Council approving the expenditure of $600,000 of public funds on an exclusive staff 'end of trip' showering facility for a mere handful of Council staff who choose to travel by bicycle. 

Setting aside the breach of tendering ethics (for which I am very well qualified to comment on, and having also been engaged by your Council to undertake similar projects in Launceston), this proposal to award a lucrative construction contract to a non-tendering party (yes Nick Daking, and I understand that you are presently apprenticed to this favoured building contractor, not that your likely absence from the meeting completely absolves you from question), certainly in this COVID-world and period of homeless and general financial stress, is an appalling use of public funds that ought to be applied to other more-important matters and projects, or simply used to reduce the ever-spiralling budget deficit. 

There is no justification for this expenditure to be made at this point in time, not even as a building stimulus action as clearly from the rather pathetic justification given, the building contractors are so over-stretched as to not need the work !

The proposed contract is over-budget and in my opinion the budgeted cost is excessive in any event for the work outlined.

Bicycles DO NOT need to be stored in an enclosed room, where they will be locked onto racks in any event. The bicycles will not by purpose be left on site overnight. The area in question already has a paved floor and is enclosed by walls on all but one side and has a roof. 

So where is this expenditure justified?.

Quite apart from the capital expenditure for this project, what is the additional impost on the ratepayer for the regular maintenance that will be required throughout the day? 

What is the budget allocation for this?

It is not as if where at home, your mother will be yelling at you to clean and dry out the shower after each use!

Coercing the Benevolent Society into managing 2 showers for 6hrs per week at Kingsmeadows....for the homeless, doesn't sanctify your likely action today to provide luxury accommodation for your personal benefit.

Be reminded that as a part of the Paterson Central mixed development (that you refused a Permit) retail parking office and residential development, your planning staff imposed 'end of trip' facilities to be incorporated.

Had you approved that Development Application, Council staff and you the Councillors would have had convenient and free access to (and the maintenance and cleaning at the Developers expense!) then it would have cost the ratepayers NOTHING.

And so, in conclusion, Please, Please, do not approve this expenditure today. 

Regards, 

Lionel Morrell, 

Architect and President Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc. 

POSTSCRIPT: With their second chance to approve this extraordinary and outrageous expenditure, and having mustered the numbers, this extraordinary process was approved with only two Councillors not supporting the proposal.

“You can lament over what could have been, or you can do something bold; use that energy to create an enviable future. It is up to you.” ― Richelle E. Goodrich

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE - COUNCIL MEETING 18th. May 2022

*

Tasmanian Ratepayers’ Association Inc. 

P.O. Box 1035, 

LAUNCESTON TAS 7250 

03 6331 6144 

11th. May 2022 

Mayor and Councillors City of Launceston Council And 

General Manager Mr Michael Stretton 

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE - COUNCIL MEETING 18th. May 2022

Dear Councillors, 

1. What is Council’s position regarding the Federal Court Appeal Hearing Ref TAD 50/2021 scheduled for 13/05/2022 Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Carparks Super Pty Ltd (Trustee) and City of Launceston Council (Second Respondent), in relation to disputed Paterson Central Carpark at 41- 55 Paterson Street Launceston, given that in Court documents filed by Simmons Wolfhagen, CoL Council’s submission states: 

2. If the Court determines that there is a currently enforceable contract between the parties, the Second Respondent will comply with any obligations that it has that might arise pursuant to that contract. 

- Does this undertaking mean that CoL Council will again be guarantor? 

- Will CoL Council again provide the deposit from ratepayer’s funds for the purchase contract?  

- Why is CoL Council supporting a private developer’s project in this manner using ratepayer’s funds, when it appears very clear to any reasonable person that this developer has not provided credible evidence that it has the funds available to settle a purchase of this property? 

2. How much of ratepayer’s funds has CoL Council expended to date to advance a development on land at 41-55 Paterson Street, and what additional ratepayer’s funds have been allocated for future development and other costs? (Please provide a full breakdown of each detailed expenditure). 

Yours faithfully, 

Lionel Morrell 

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc. 

Per President, 

L.J.Morrell, 41 High Street Launceston 7250

THE MEMBER FOR BASS' BACKGROUND BRIEFING ... FAKE NEWS OR NO?

Apparently, at a media background briefing in Bass it has been revealed that the long-promised BBRF grant of $10m, purportedly for drought relief, that cannot be spent within the time limits due to developer Mr. C Billing’s spectacular failure a few months ago to win his Federal Court Case. 

In court, Mr. C Billing attempted to claim ‘ownership’ of the Paterson Central Carpark site in Central Launceston and the court found otherwise. 

Apparently, almost at the stroke of midnight for the calling of the Federal Election, this ‘drought grant’ seems to have been reallocated? If it has, the City of Launceston Council should be able to provide details. 

However, in response to a question Council management played the ‘dead bat answer’ technique, saying that there is “Nothing to Report”! How can this be? In fact, how can the elected representatives let it stand? 

IF the insiders at Town Hall are not telling Councillors and their constituency information they need right NOW in order to make informed decisions at ‘election time’ why not? 

IF the city’s elected representatives and Council’s executive – all on mega salaries – cannot provide insights in regard to such anticipated expenditure shifts why not? What legitimate ‘commercial in confidence’ or ‘operational issues’ could possibly be in play here? 

Apparently, Launceston’s brand new front line project that is said to have “strong community interest, benefit and support” for this money is that it goes to a developer’s vision, namely the kanamaluka CULTURAL CENTRE - a $60m so-called landmark arts facility, hoped to be a real vote winner for Bass Member Archer. .

Bass voters with an eye on the electorate’s real needs harbour deeply felt hopes and aspirations. They see that such a use of this PUBLIC MONEY is what it would be, a bizarre misuse of funds, if diverted to this purpose.

With the inevitability of the ‘cultural centre’ sitting right on the flood plain, not even in Northern NSW or Queensland could this deal float in a climate change world. 

With failed flood mitigation infrastructure leaving the diabolic devastation that it did in Lismore that we have all witnessed on our TVs for weeks now – we are alert to the folly. 

As surely as day follows night Launceston’s so called ‘flood mitigation’ will be exposed to an extreme weather event and, like in Lismore, the flood plain will flood. 

Anyone who remembers the 2016 flood in Launceston will know that the city’s levy banks came within “an inch or two” of failing. 

But is this just fake news? If so, why is it apparently being hinted at during a background press briefing? Who has lost that recently much spoken of 'Moral Compass' that guides good people at times like this?

There are more questions but these here need to be answered first.

LAUNCESTON IN SOLIDARITY

 

“If we know, then we must fight for your life as though it were our own -which it is- and render impassable with our bodies the corridors to the gas chamber. For if they come for you in the morning, they will be coming for us that night.” ... James Baldwin

LAUNCESTON IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE UKRAINE PEOPLE

• 
  Russia encircles
• “Do not let the behavior of others destroy your inner peace.”
• Dalai Lama
• 
• 



eBAYlink

• LINK

If you want to make peace with your enemy, 

you have to work with your enemy. 

Then he becomes your partner.

Nelson Mandela

HAS LAUNCESTON ACTUALLY GOT THE CAPACITY TO LEAD? OR, WILL THIS COUNCIL PERSIST WITH IS 'NEAR ENOUGH IS GOOD ENOUGH' STANCE?

 

GO TO CENTRAL COAST COUNCIL POLICY: https://www.centralcoast.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-Greening-Central-Coast-Strategy.pdf

Launceston Council's February 10 agenda is not yet published but it is reported that there will be an agenda item to do with, wait for it, GREENING LAUNCESTON! Notably, its reported that it comes about as a knee jerk reaction to that august body, the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, and it's 'initiative' to encourage/whatever the council to, presumably deliver on its 2019 'CLIMATE EMERGENCY POLICY' – something that 'this bunch of Councillors' has avoided doing anything about in reality.

Local Governments throughout Australia not only have such policies, they are being very active relative to their determinations. 

In Launceston the chain dragging is palpable and if one dare ask anyone, Councillor or officer, you'll get 'we cannot do that sort of change just yet' ... 'this is hard and we are constrained by this or that'  ... and it goes on and on and on and tediously.

AND, this Council has spent $8.1 million dollar of ratepayers money on a landfill cell all the time mouthing support for ZERO WASTE. Can anyone spot the credibility gap?

In the end it is all empty rhetoric! Meanwhile, Tasmania's Central Coast Council is in front and centre building upon its past and rather environmentally sensitive policy sets and always looking to 'up the anti'. In fact, in that administration there has been some interest in the 12 questions a Launceston Ratepayer has put to Council, alongside the Chamber of Commerce's apparent advocacy, and that is more than interesting.

The Central Coast Council turns out to be a leader and as for Launceston's Council you might say .................

Doreen Bowen